I think I should withdraw that above, I have just been enlarging what is written on the drawing and it is looking like a different version entirely. Not confirming either Long or Halse.

There are three lines, or more accurately two lines, plus a word.
The last word at the bottom left is "nothing".
The second line seems to say:"Men to be blamed for"

The last three words on the top line seem to read:"are not the"

So, what I can see is"xxx xxxxx are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing

The second word on the top line that should be "Juwes" seems to begin with a "J", and end with an "s", but the precise spelling is not clear.
The first word begins with a capital "T" and is followed by a "ne", the vertical line for the "h" is faint, so what we see is consistent with "The".

Hi Jon

It's a pity that this part isn't as clear as the other but from what I can see I think that you've got it right. You would expect a high level of attention to detail from an architect. Long said that it was in 3 lines. So is it likelier that the message read:

The J***s are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing.

You would think that it wouldn't be beyond the capibilities of 3 people to correctly copy a simple message! To be honest I would have expected Foster to even make a decent fist at copying the handwriting too.

It's a pity that this part isn't as clear as the other but from what I can see I think that you've got it right. You would expect a high level of attention to detail from an architect. Long said that it was in 3 lines. So is it likelier that the message read:

The J***s are not the
men to be blamed for
nothing.

You would think that it wouldn't be beyond the capibilities of 3 people to correctly copy a simple message! To be honest I would have expected Foster to even make a decent fist at copying the handwriting too.

Regards
Herlock

Well, if you lined up all four sources (Long, Halse, Warren, Foster), and made me pick thee most trustworthy source for accuracy, I would say Foster, hands down!
But, as the Coroner had this drawing in front of him at the inquest (he scribbled a note of his own on the side), then I wonder why he didn't ask Foster for his version of what was written?

Well, if you lined up all four sources (Long, Halse, Warren, Foster), and made me pick thee most trustworthy source for accuracy, I would say Foster, hands down!
But, as the Coroner had this drawing in front of him at the inquest (he scribbled a note of his own on the side), then I wonder why he didn't ask Foster for his version of what was written?

Hi Jon,
Is there any evidence that Foster was in Goulston St before the message was erased? Or could he have simply recorded someone elses version of the writing when noting it's position?

There's one thing that I've being wondering about so opinions would be welcome. Out of Long and Halse, Long seemed the less certain of the exact wording of the message. Why do we appear to trust the 'Long' version?

Regards
Herlock

As Halse was the person pushing for the GSG to be photographed I think his version is more likely to be accurate.

It seems that there was an inexplicably large time gap between the time the ripper left Mitre Square and the earliest time that the rag could have been placed/discarded in Goulston Street.

Regards
Herlock

There is no "earliest time" if you consider the possibility (remote or otherwise) that Long may have been mistaken. Yes, Long says he was sure the apron piece wasn't there on a previous circuit, but I have been repeatedly reminded, by legal advisers in the retiring room, that a witness can be absolutely certain - yet still be mistaken.

If you look back over the testimony, PC long's version was witnessed by an Inspector, who read it over and corrected some spelling.
So, in effect, it was already independently verified before it came to the inquest.
That is my take.

For what it's worth, the architect W. F. Foster, who drew the plans of the murder scene wrote in pencil the graffiti as a freehand note in the corner of one of his drawings - The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing.

This is a version that never receives any publicity, yet it confirms PC Long's version.
This side note was written directly beside Fosters instructions detailing where the apron/graffiti was found. None of these details were spoken of at the inquest but Coroner Langham had these drawings in front of him.

I didn't know that, Jon, but might it not just indicate that Long, rather than Halse, was his source, not necessarily that his was the accurate version?

"and yes it does go along with the killers GSG re being pissed off at being interrupted by jews that night."

Hello Abby,

This statement assumes a couple of things which may or may not be true. First, that Schwartz was telling the truth. And even if he was, there is the possibility that the B.S. man was just some drunk on his way home and not Jack.

As for Lawende and his friends, it assumes that Jack was aware that he was being looked at so much so that he was able to determine that they were Jewish. If so, it then begs the question of why he would go on to kill Eddowes so soon after being seen.

c.d.

Does it not also assume that the woman seen by Lawende and the others was actually Eddowes?